Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE PROHIBITION OF A WIFE'S SISTER

(a) Summation of question: We see from the Mishnah, his wife's sister is forbidden, both paternal and maternal - what is the source for this?
(b) Answer #1: We learn from his sister; just as both paternal and maternal sisters are forbidden, so too by the sisters of one's wife.

1. Question: Why don't we learn from his uncle's wife, that only the paternal sister is forbidden?
2. Answer: It is more reasonable to learn from his sister, since this prohibition is due to himself, just as his wife's sister.
3. Objection: It is better to learn from his uncle's wife, a prohibition that comes through engagement, just as a wife's sister!

(c) Answer #2 Rather, we learn from his brother's wife, since this prohibition is due to himself and comes through engagement.
(d) Question: How do we know the law by a brother's wife?
(e) Answer (Beraisa): "Your brother's wife" - paternal or maternal.

1. Question: Perhaps, the prohibition should only be by a paternal brother!
2. Suggestion #1: Just as by his sister, both paternal and maternal sisters are forbidden - here, also!
3. Suggestion #2: Or perhaps, we should learn from his father's brother's wife, only the paternal brother is included!

i. Suggestion #1: It is better to learn from his sister (his own relative) and not from his uncle's wife, which is his father's relative.
ii. Suggestion #2: Perhaps, it is better to learn from his uncle's wife, since this also comes through engagement, and not from his sister!
iii. Therefore, it was needed to learn from "Your brother's wife".

(f) Question: Perhaps only a paternal brother's wife is forbidden - the extra verse is needed to teach, when he has children, she is forbidden in the life of his brother and after his death!
(g) Answer: If he has children, after his death we already know that she is forbidden - since the Torah permitted Yibum when he has no children, we infer that when he has children, she is forbidden!
(h) Suggestion #1: Perhaps when he has no children, she is permitted to the Yavam and forbidden to all others; when he has children, she is permitted to all!

1. Suggestion #2: Or, perhaps, when he has no children, Yibum is a Mitzvah; when he has children, it is optional!
2. Suggestion #3: Or, perhaps, when he has no children, Yibum is permitted; when he has children, it is forbidden, and the prohibition is derived from a Mitzvas Aseh and is only a Chayavei Ase!

(i) Rejection: To negate these possibilities, the Torah wrote "The Ervah of his brother he revealed".
(j) Suggestion: Perhaps a maternal brother's wife is as a paternal brother's wife, and is permitted after death!
(k) Rejection: "She is" - she remains forbidden.
(l) Question: Why did the Torah write excision by a sister (all Arayos are Chayavei Kerisus)?
(m) Answer: To teach as R. Yochanan.

1. (R. Yochanan): If he had relations with all the Arayos, forgetting that they are forbidden, he brings a sacrifice for each one.

(n) R. Yitzchak says that even though one is normally lashed for Chayavei Lavin, Kares was written by one's sister to teach that the punishment for Chayavei Kerisus is Kares and not lashes.

1. Question: From where does R. Yitzchak learn R. Yochanan's law?
2. Answer: From "To a Nidah in her impurity", teaching that one is liable for each Ervah.

(o) Question: Why did the Torah write by an uncle's wife, "They will be childless"?
(p) Answer: As Rabah taught.

1. Contradiction (Rabah): It says, "They will be childless"; another verse says "They will die childless"!
2. Answer (Rabah): If he has children (when he sinned), he will bury them; if he had no children, he will die childless.

i. It was needed to write both.
ii. If the Torah only wrote "They will be childless" - one would think, children he had before sinning will die, but not children after the sin!
iii. If the Torah only wrote "They will die childless" - one would think, he will not have children after the sin - but children born before sinning will not die!

(a) Question: How do we know that Ha'ara'ah is considered as relations by Chayavei Lavin?
(b) Answer: By a Shicha Charufah (a female slave designated to a male slave), the Torah punishes a man that that has (relations fitting for) semen - implying, other Chayavei Lavin are punishable for Ha'ara'ah.
(c) Question: One can learn contrarily - since the Torah revealed that Chayavei Kerisus are liable for Ha'ara'ah, Chayavei Lavin are only liable for full relations!
(d) Answer (Rav Ashi): If this would be so, the Torah would not have had to write that one is only liable for a designated slave by full relations.
(e) Question: How do we know that Ha'ara'ah is considered as relations by Chayavei Lavin of Kehunah?
(f) Answer: From a Gezeirah Shaveh, "Kichah-Kichah".
(g) Question: How do we know that Ha'ara'ah is considered as relations by Chayavei Ase?

(h) Answer: From a Gezeirah Shaveh, "Biah-Biah".
(i) Question: How do we know that a Yevamah that has relations with a stranger is liable for Ha'ara'ah?
(j) Answer: According to the opinion that this is Chayavei Lavin - from our source for Chayavei Lavin; according to the opinion that this is Chayavei Aseh -from our source for Chayavei Ase!
(k) Question: Rather, how do we know Ha'ara'ah is as full relations to acquire a Yevamah?
(l) Answer: From a Gezeirah Shaveh, "Biah-Biah".
(m) Question: How do we know that Ha'ara'ah is considered as relations for a man to marry a woman?
(n) Answer: From a Gezeirah Shaveh, "Kichah-Kichah".
(o) Question (Rava): Why did the Torah have to write "Semen" by a designated slave, by a married woman, and by a Sotah?
(p) Answer: Regarding a designated slave - as said above.

1. Regarding a married woman - to exclude relations with a soft Ever.

i. This answer fits the opinion that relations with a soft Ever are exempt by Arayos.

2. Question: According to the opinion that relations with a soft Ever are liable by Arayos, how can we answer?
3. Answer: To exclude one that has relations with a married woman that died.

i. One would think, since she is still considered his wife after death, one is liable for her - the verse teaches that this is not so.

(q) "Semen" was written by a Sotah - as taught in a Beraisa.

1. (Beraisa): "Semen" - to exclude something else.
2. Question: What is this something else?
3. Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): To exclude one that warned his wife not to have unnatural relations.
4. Objection (Rava): But it says, "Lyings with a woman" (whether natural or not)!
5. Answer #2 (Rava): To exclude one that warned his wife not to have intimacy with other parts of the body.
6. Objection (Abaye): Did the Torah really forbid mere lewdness?!
7. Answer #3 (Abaye): To exclude one that warned his wife against touching (of the genitals).

i. This fits the opinion that says that Ha'ara'ah means entrance of the crown (of the Ever).
ii. Question: According to the opinion that says that Ha'ara'ah means touching - how can we answer?

8. Answer: Really, we can say as Rava, to exclude intimacy with other parts of the body.

i. We do need to hear this - one would have thought, the Torah made things dependent on the whims of the husband, and he is insistent on this - the verse teaches otherwise.

(a) (Shmuel): Ha'ara'ah is touching.

1. This is analogous to a man that puts his finger on his mouth - by necessity, it will make some indentation.

(b) (Rabah Bar Bar Chanah, citing R. Yochanan): Full relations said by a designated slave - this is entrance of the crown.
(c) Question (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): He is only liable for emptying out.

1. Suggestion: For emptying out the Ever!

(d) Answer: No, for emptying out the crown.
(e) (Rav Dimi, citing R. Yochanan): Ha'ara'ah is the entrance of the crown.

1. Talmidim: But Rabah Bar Bar Chanah said otherwise in R. Yochanan's name!
2. Rav Dimi: Either he is a liar, or I am!

(f) (Ravin, citing R. Yochanan): Ha'ara'ah is the entrance of the crown.

1. He certainly argues on Rabah Bar Bar Chanah.
2. Question: Must we say that he argues on Shmuel?
3. Answer: No - from touching until entrance of the crown he calls Ha'ara'ah.

(g) (Rav Shmuel Bar Yehudah, citing R. Yochanan): Ha'ara'ah is the entrance of the crown; full relations are literally, full relations.